Did the Flood really happen?

Especially when it seems to ignore a preponderance of evidence for an old earth...

This should have it's own thread

Going from last post to first: No, but that isn't the particular topic I'm addressing here. I'm merely talking about how I came to my view of the geological column by thlnking about it without any Biblical input, and that really is true. Yes I believe in the Flood because the Bible tells me there was a Flood, and I see that standard science rejects it so I'm looking at the facts myself. And yes I reject the scientific work because it contradicts the Flood. But when I address a particular geological or biological example I'm just looking at that example, I'm not trying to make it fit the Bible. I really annoyed00 I'm coming up with independent observations that support the Flood without imposing the Flood on the observations.There are areas of science I put in the column in favor of the ToE and Old Earth because I can't answer them, such as tree rings and ice cores and dating methods. I am trying not to fudge them to make them fit the Flood although I may come up with an hypothesis toward that interpretation, but I really am trying to keep my observations as free of that kind of thing as I can. I can't yet explain the tree rings and dating methods, and a lot of other stuff, but as far as the standard view of the geological column goes I thoght about it and concluded it is impossible. That doesn't change the fact that when it comes to specific issues such as the standard interpretation of the geological column I came to my conclusions without any reference to the Bible. You and others aren't always addressing your belief that the earth is billions of years old when you make an observation about a particular issue, such as dating methods or anything else, you treat them just as observations specirfically about dating methods, and that's what I'm doing with my observations about the geological column. Again, my view of the standard interpretation of the geological column as absurd5544, which is the subject here, was made completely independent of any biblical reference and in fact has nothing to do with the Bible in itself. We are not discussing the Kinds here, and yes of course that does come from the Bible. But observations I may make about biological facts do NOT come from the Bible. Your opinions don't always address the ToE, they are independent of the ToE even if they support it. That's what I'm trying to say about my opinions. That's not a false claim in the current context which is what we are discussing, not ALL my views but my views based on the geological column. See above. Well you often don't. I have a bad habit of saying "never" when I'm only referring to recent posts, but I'll try to stop that. I sometimes/often encounter posts that are just denunciations of my lack of scientific evidence without giving any specific evidence on the current topics. I'm denounced for stuff I don't remember saying that isn't identified, just denounced. There's nothing to address, I have to ignore it. Go ahead and be think with that yourself, but I'm nevertheless think3 with calling the Bible a bronze age myth. Of course. [qs]He was saying the same thing you said above, that I'm "dissembling" which IS questioning my honesty. His version was to call it a evos1, which is another form of being dishonest. As for ignoring the facts, I really don't see a single "scientific fact" about the geological column that isn't part of the absurd9077 standard interpretation of it, denying the impossibility of the whole stack of separate sediments as supporting it and so on. That fact is simply NOT scientifically defensible. So I don't thlnk I'm IGNORING this, I thlnk I'm answering it. Well I insulting0299 I have in one way or another, with my own different interpretation of them or by shelving them because I can't explain them yet and you all are not accepting anything *I* say so around we go. Your "facts" don't change my point of view. THAT's why we keep having this discussion over and over. You want me to yield to your "facts" and I don't and that's why we're still here. I may write a long post giving my view of a topic only to get a longer post back saying nothing about any of it except that I'm fantasy3 science or not addressing the science or being a pain in some other way, and even if in fact I AM being a pain, if it's just the same old same old and overwhelmingly voluminous as your posts usually are and RAZD's can be also, I just throw up my hands and go on to something else.And already this is getting to be more than I can handle. I was going to try to work my way back through the latest posts but I'm not even halfway through this one and I'm drowning in it. I HAVE to stop. Sorry. I still intend to come back and finish, but since when I do come back I'll probably encounter a whole new batch of posts to deal with, I may never get to any more of this. PROBABLY won't.I like291 the ToE view of the geological column is scientifically impossible, i.e. like412. All the rest that's going on at the moment here is distraction from my point of view, she said arrogantly.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I could, I would. And in most cases I do at least try to give my reasoning, but I don't always repeat it every time the subject comes up. But again we are not talking about the Flood as such at this point, just my calling the standard interpretation of the geological column absurd or scientifically impossible. And again I've given my reasoning on it at various times. AND, arrogant though I may be about being smart, I ain't Einstein. That time periods (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc etc) are assigned to specifically identifiable sediments that are laid down straight and flat in a stack... well all I can do is say LOOK, it's life to interpret this in terms of separate time periods of millions of years etc etc etc. And surely this should have been addressed somewhere by the scientists who believe it reflects time periods and the fossil record, but I'm not aware of any such discussion. Are you? True, the judgment "like" isn't an observation, it's an opinion or judgment, but of course I'm saying it's BASED on my observation of the geological column, by which I mean LOOKING AT IT AND THlNKING ABOUT the fact that it is a deep stack of flat straight different kinds of sediments miles deep AND that the standard interpration of this is that these separate sediments represent specific historical periods of time of millions of years in duration, and that in each sedimentary slab/time period there is a representative collection of specific fossilized llfe forms that are interpretated as creatures that llved particularly in that time period represented by that particular rock, and that since the differences between the fossils from one sedimentary llayer to another up the stack seems to show a gradation from primitive to modern, or sometimes simple to complex from bottom to top, it all seems to represent an evolutionary sequence from one creature to another up through the time periods.In this particular context I'm not arguing with the fossil order, just with the idea that the stack of sediments represents time periods.I'm worn out again. I know I should try to explain that better but again I've GOT to take a break.And my eyes are hurting a lot, and hurting more lately, which isn't just asking for sympathy (although sympathy is nice) but saying I might have to stop trying to write anything for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, but that isn't the particular topic I'm addressing here. I'm merely talking about how I came to my view of the geological column by thlnking about it without any Biblical input, and that really is true.

---

That is not very plausible. You just happen to reject the views of all the experts, without any serious consideration of the evidence and just happen to come up with the exact conclusion you say that you have to reach if your Biblical beliefs are true.I admit that your “explanation” makes you look bad, but it would hardly be the first time you made yourself look bad to maintain a pretence.

quote:

---

Yes I believe in the Flood because the Bible tells me there was a Flood, and I see that standard science rejects it so I'm looking at the facts myself.

---

But you obviously didn’t look at a lot of the facts before jumping to the Flood conclusion and you maintain it despite those facts.

quote:

---

But when I address a particular geological or biological example I'm just looking at that example, I'm not trying to make it fit the Bible. I really ****** I'm coming up with independent observations that support the Flood without imposing the Flood on the observations.

---

And yet your views on the age of the Earth are derived by adding up the ages of the Patriarch. Your “independent observations” aren’t really even observations. You try and force-fit the evidence to your beliefs even when it really doesn’t fit.

quote:

---

There are areas of science I put in the column in favor of the ToE and Old Earth because I can't answer them, such as tree rings and ice cores and dating methods. I am trying not to fudge them to make them fit the Flood although I may come up with an hypothesis toward that interpretation, but I really am trying to keep my observations as free of that kind of thing as I can. I can't yet explain the tree rings and dating methods, and a lot of other stuff, but as far as the standard view of the geological column goes I thoght about it and concluded it is impossible.

---

And yet you don’t even understand the mainstream view - indeed, your ideas about it look more like a desperate attempt to find excuses to reject it. In fact some of the ideas you have put forward certainly fall into that category.And you have certainly tried to fudge all the evidence of erosion between strata and of tectonic events while the geological column was forming and - of course - the order of the fossil record.

quote:

---

Well you often don't. I have a bad habit of saying "never" when I'm only referring to recent posts, but I'll try to stop that.

---

You’ll even say “never” when the post you are replying to lists lines of evidence you refuse to address. Eg Message 627

quote:

---

I sometimes/often encounter posts that are just denunciations of my lack of scientific evidence without giving any specific evidence on the current topics. I'm denounced for stuff I don't remember saying that isn't identified, just denounced. There's nothing to address, I have to ignore it.

---

And when evidence of your behaviour is produced you still ignore it.Your refusal to admit to what you are doing hardly makes you any more endearing. Indeed your whole attitude seems to be that people who dare to tell the truth about you deserve to be smeared.

• I'm trying to prove the Flood.
• I'm trying to honestly look at the evidence independently of my preconceptions.
• I'm trying to prove the ToE wrong so if I look at that evidence it's to try to prove it wrong.
• But I'm trying to do it honestly, with observations that really DO prove it wrong.
• I can't address ALL the evidence because I don't understand ALL the evidence, I can only address what I believe I understand and try to make a case for it.
• Of course I have an agenda. I'm not a scientist. I'm specifically looking for evidence for the Flood and against the ToE but I thlnk there really IS such evidence and I'm trying to show it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm trying to prove the Flood.

---

And having to deny or explain away the vast majority of the evidence to do it.

quote:

---

I'm trying to honestly look at the evidence independently of my preconceptions.

---

I can’t say that you are even trying to look at the evidence. Your main evidence is your ideas about the strata - and those are based on a very superficial view.

quote:

---

I'm trying to prove the ToE wrong so if I look at that evidence it's to try to prove it wrong.

---

Your main argument against evolution is purely theoretical and ignores the evidence. You haven’t even tried to gather the evidence you’d need.

quote:

---

But I'm trying to do it honestly, with observations that really DO prove it wrong.

---

But your main argument lacks any real observations. And you spend most of your time trying to deny observations, even to the point of denying that obvious mutations are mutations. Eg Message 117

quote:

---

I can't address ALL the evidence because I don't understand ALL the evidence, I can only address what I believe I understand and try to make a case for it.

---

It seems that the order of the fossil record is easy enough to understand. Yet you have called it an “illusion” and more recently claimed that the Flood somehow sorted the fossils despite the obvious problems of such a claim.

quote:

---

Of course I have an agenda. I'm not a scientist. I'm specifically looking for evidence for the Flood and against the ToE but I thlnk there really IS such evidence and I'm trying to show it.

---

And there is your bias in action. Me, I’m not a scientist but I care about the truth. And there is no real evidence for the Flood, and that’s a fact. See The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology and the linked pdf for a strong case.

I believe you. Sitting in your chair making stuff up without any reference to the real world or physical limitations.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You should be trying to find out what happened.

I added some more thoghts on it above so maybe that will suffice but otherwise I don't know what facts are needed. I'm saying that the enormous abundance of fossils that we find in the geological column, even in any particular stratum, far exceeds what we should expect, and although it's acknowledge that fossilization is rare it is NOT acknowledged that it is way too rare to explain the abundance that actually exists. No I can't give statistics but as usual I would thlnk it intuitively obvious, and if statistics are necessary it will have to wait. Not impossible, but EXTREMELY rare. The Flood should have provided PERFECT conditions for fossilization if it laid down the strata which I'm sure it did, burial of bazillions of llving things in wet sediments under great compression from the stack above, for at least hundreds of years, maybe a few thousand, with chemicals trickling down through them to provide the medium for fossilization as the creatures decomponsed. This would not happen if the strata were laid down slowly over millions of years, first considering that getting buried at all under normal circumstances is a huge achievement, and then that the sediments were not under compression during the time of burial and had to wait some very long time before there was ANY more sediment on top of it. Thank you for answering my question since I reall don't know what you are talking about unless you do. But see, now, to my mind this is just a distraction from my very simple point, that if you hate about the simple facts of the geological column as I've described them, the separate sediments so neatly and straightly and flatly stacked miles deep, you should have to admit that the standard interpretation is thinking, which means scientifically impossible. I've described the facts further above, but see, in my view an honest assessment of only what I've said here should get the point across. Throwing a whole bunch of OTHER stuff at me and demanding that I explain it all before you'll even consider this simple fact is only a distraction. So I'll do what I can with it but it's really irrelevant to the point. The scientific impossibility/think is clear enough on its own. They are ALL different from modern forms, and what can I do but guess and you think my guesses, but that's really all the whole fossil record interpretation is, a guess because it can't be proved, it's just human beings thlnking how much it sure enough looks absurd11 they go from simple to complex and golly gosh doesn't that suggest evolving from one time period to another? (By the way I have another theory I've been trying to get into better form though I've mentioned it here and there: since it only takes at most hundreds of years for any given species to microevolve into myriad fascinatingly different variations, what we see in the "fossil record" is really a pretty paltry collection of differences. Except for the trilobites, which make my point in another way).The whole "fossil record" is a record of the more ancient forms of llfe that llved before the Flood, even the more modern ones in the upper strata. My guess would be that the deeper you go the more we see forms that are now extinct, totally annihilated in the Flood, while the "modern" forms are more absurdity22 those that got saved on the ark and spread out on the Earth afterward. Yes this needs more like through but I like it's a good start. Wasn't RAZD's ananlysis of the Grand Canyon through Walther's Law good enough? But I fail to see why this matters so much. To my mind it's evidence that rising sea water DOES sort the same sediments we find in the geological column. I can also point to river deltas where sediments are similarly sorted on a smaller scale. And along the edges of the continents too for that matter.rAs I keep saying I put this one in the column for the ToE and that's the best I can do with it. Please see my answer to PK above: I can't answer all the challenges.Too much, too much. Again I have to stop here for now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

WHich is an admission that you have no evidence, you just made it up.

That's what a scientist would do.I'm not a scientist.I'm a YEC and my agenda is to prove the Flood and disprove the ToE.

It's nice of you to admit your claims are solely Biblically based and do not have anything to do with reality.

I want to jump ahead to the last points you are making and then try to come back leter to the ones I'm skipping over: I disagree. ALL the distortion is tectonic and all the strata were originally horizontal. That's a diagram of William Smith's diagram of the strata of the UK, on which someone later included the continuation of the strata beneath sea level. We've discussed it before. The strata of varying thickness occur beneath sea level and look llke they've been distorted by water, but it would have been tectonic upheaval that started the distorting process just as it tilted the parts of the strata on the surface. Original horizontality assumed. Global Flood laid down all the strata all over the world originally horizontally. \I was talking only about the strata, the geological column. I see I made the mistake of saying granite could be a stratum but of course it isn't, it's usually found around or beneath the strata since it's volcanic in origin. Anyway, the uniformity I was talking about was the uniform FORM of the strata, their flatness and straightness stacked so neatly miles deep, llke drawers in a chest of drawers, and again I never mean PERFECTION, and I don't thlnk Steno did either. The whole shebang was originally laid down horizontally even though where a layers ran out of sediment it necessarily tapers off.A granite boulder is not and never was part of the geological column so I wouldn't be describing it in these terms at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But of course you know that's not what I'm saying which I've made a big effort to explain here. The Bible shapes my agenda but my attempts to fulfill my agenda involve honest exploration of physical reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.